"JAMESON GIBBERISH"

PART I

Since this is a response to an item that was, in effect, addressed to me, this response is addressed specifically to Jameson with audience and forum participation allowed as was the case in her original presentation of an alleged analysis of my garrote analysis.

The original garrote analysis states what I believe and why I believe it without innuendo, name calling, or ad hominem. Sticking strictly to the issues is my preference. However, some persons with child-like psychology and fear of facing unwanted truth attempt to evade the issues and hide feelings of inadequacy by personal attacks and various forms of ad hominem.

Ordinarily, I ignore and still stick to issues and only the issues. In this instance of Jameson Gibberish, made up mostly of childish personal attacks, if I ignore these, there is practically nothing left to prompt a response. As much as it goes against the grain to do so, sometimes playing the name game, but playing it better is the only way to put an end to the nonsense. I will deal with the issues. You can count on that, but from time to time, there will be interjections that departs from my preferred and usual practice of issues only.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Literally, every scrap of known material evidence such as the pad, pen, handle, etc. is identified as local and requires no inclusion of an intruder for explanation. In talking about evidence of an intruder, every claim is qualified by "missing" and\or "could be". This is equating potential with actual without evidentiary connection."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"pad and pen were from the house - - also the handle - - those items are connected to the Ramseys and their house. But the stungun, cord, tape - those things could not be linked tot he ramseys. the handwriting did not belong to the Ramseys and the foreign DNA found on her body was not from the family. Hair and fibers found on the body, blanket and tape also not "local".

This is typical of the factually unsupported claims that have become a Ramsey Camp mantra alleging intruder and intruder guilt with the complementary arbitrary declaration of alleged Ramsey innocence. None of these claims will hold up under basic questioning and elementary observation.

What stun gun? Marks were found on JonBenet whose cause is unknown. I could list many possibilities as random speculation that may or may not include the actual cause. Until the actual cause is determined, there is no evidence of cause.

No stun gun was found at the crime scene, nor has any stun gun from any source been factually connected with the crime. What is claimed as evidence of a stun gun is nothing more than speculation without definitive connection to any known fact of the case."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Lou Smit says".

"Lou Smit says" does not create a stun gun, nor constitute evidence in any way. I could just as easily claim the marks were made by a spanner wrench, a potholder loom, an allergy, an infection, etc. It would be pure speculation. Speculation is not evidence. Furthermore, there is speculation for the purpose of logically connecting known facts in a given situation; and there is speculation that connects to no known facts, speculation that depends upon the speculation alone.

None of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder connects to any known fact regarding the crime. All the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is nothing more that mutually dependent items of speculation none of which go to ground zero and connect to any item of actual evidence. In other words, pure mental invention and illusion without a trace of credibility.

All known cord and tape was found in the house. Who else does this link to except the Ramseys? There is no knowledge of more tape and cord, and if there were more, what is to stop the Ramseys from disposing of it. No intruder is required to explain the condition.

The cord and tape issue serves as a perfect example of the "thinking" that underlies the "Ramsey defense". First, there is no necessity that any cord or tape remained apart from what was found at the crime scene. Second, suppose a partial roll of matching tape and a partial roll of matching cord had been found on the premises. Is there an doubt that the "Ramsey defense" would have claimed that the "intruder" used Ramsey material in this instance as "he" did in using Ramsey pad and pen

I believe it is abundantly clear that no matter what the situation, or what the evidence, the "Ramsey defense" will "interpret" it to their satisfaction. Is there a limit to this kind of "thinking?" No. It is admitted that no more tape and cord were found. In terms or evidence, this means non existent. Yet, the "Ramsey defense" "thinking" translates non existence as "evidence" of an "existent intruder." I believe you can readily see that with this criteria of "Ramsey defense" "thinking", any conclusion is possible, yet claimed to be "fact." This kind of "thinking" and "investigation" would have to come up several notches to be called ludicrous.

Notice the psychological inference resulting in the theory of intruder. If the marks on the body are speculated to be from a stun gun and said speculated stun gun is arbitrarily speculated to be the property of an intruder, this item of speculation stands as the launching platform for more speculation.

If no excess of tape and cord are found in the house, the speculation that there is more is attributed to the speculated intruder with disregard for the logical speculation that if there were more cord and tape, the Ramseys, factually connected to the crime scene, could have disposed of it. Note that this high probability is simply disregarded in deference to the intruder theory formulated on the contradiction, "negative evidence."

Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Could it be that he calls the scene professional for no other reason than is suits his purpose?"

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Nah - - it isn't that complicated. John was told by others, by people investigating this homicide, people consulting on the case, people experienced in homicide investigations, that the garotte was not something thrown together without any planning."

You were there when these "others" told John? You know for a fact that John never thought or called the garrote professional before he was told by "others?" When and where did this happen? Why were you present? And if you weren't present, how do you know what you claim to know.

Why do you make such statements when you know you can't back them up? Has your delete button eliminated all but obedient clones and led you to believe you won't be questioned and asked to supply evidence to back up your claims?

So, these "people experienced in homicide investigations" have a lot of "experience" with garrotes, ropes, handles, knots and that sort of thing? Right? What are the names of these people, and what is their background of experience in these items?

The reason I ask is because I have had the experience. I do know about these things. I do know that if any people told John that the garrote scene is the work of a professional, I know they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

The reason I want names is because I want these "people" to tell me on what criteria they call this bungled mess the work of a professional. Do you suppose I could get just one of these "people" to do this? John and Lou sure haven't explained the professional claim. Would you like to try it?

The scene you present by your declaration is that some persons, really ignorant of garrotes and knots were motivated to label the garrote scene as professional and inform John of this conclusion. John in turn accepts this as important and promotes the idea world wide in frequent utterances. The inference is that all of John's motivation comes from being told the garrote scene is professional.

The much higher probability for this motivation was described in the analysis. John was not "told" the garrote scene was professional. He knew damn well it was grossly amateurish because he created it. His incessant claim of professional was and is nothing more than a nervous reaction to try to sell the idea of professional to draw attention away from himself as the creator of this bungled and amateurish mess.

If all the "somebody told John" nonsense is not absurd enough, you walk in contradiction by the claim itself. If you believe my analysis and conclusion of amateur is mistaken, then by complement, you must believe the garrote scene is professional. If you believe the garrote scene is professional, why would you want to remove John from the responsibility of the claim???

Your feeble effort to discredit my analysis with inclusive conclusion of amateur while trying to separate John and his contrary position indicates you are influenced by the truth of the analysis, not by John's claim in opposition. In other words, you are in effect stating you believe the analysis is truth even as you try to dismiss it; thus do you admit to and confirm that which you propose to deny. The truth will out. To see it is just a matter of removing the covering verbiage.

The problem you faced is that you really don't know what's what about the garrote scene and understand my arguments not at all. All you grasp is that it is a challenge to John Ramsey's claim of professional and you felt the need to come to the rescue; a failing effort for sure, but this is the motivation.

"Can the intruder theory be sustained if we eliminate the characteristic, professional? How do we answer this question except by first going back to square one and do a bit of evaluating on our own and see what the evidence really tells of its creator."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"I object to England using the word "professional" here, I believe that Smit and others described the person as someone who has practiced knots, not necessarily an "expert"

You object to "MY" use of the word professional? What a laugh. Just where in the hell do you think I got this term? In the garrote analysis and many other places there are several quotes from John and Lou using the terms, professional, sophisticated, intricate and the like indicating "expert." Why don't you object to THEIR use of the term, professional?

Are you trying to disassociate John from the claim of professional now that my analysis has revealed the fallacy of the claim? Is this why you object to MY use of the term, professional though the connection and source is John himself. Jameson, this silly objection is clear indicator of running scared, really scared.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Indeed, these things have been so much a part of my life that evaluation of the garrote scene is almost by mental reflex taking less than a minute. The read is easy as well as loud and clear"

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"This man, Delmar England feels that he is proficient in several areas."

Its not feels. Its knows. Modesty forbids me telling you just how great I really am. :) So, what does this personal remark have to do with the "facts" that you claim to cherish. Does what I feel of don't feel alter the facts in some way? Or is it really your own mental problem; a mental problem wherein you imagine that if you can discredit the source, unpleasant truth presented by the source will go away. Sorry, Jameson, it won't happen. Your silly efforts to discredit me serve only to discredit yourself; not that you even had any credibility, but you know what I mean.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"I think he has a lot of nerve posting his thoughts when he is -- well - - he is NOT an "expert"....

Now ain't that a caution? :) I take it you are saying that only an "expert" is qualified to post his thoughts? How about you Jameson? You post your thought don't you? Are you an "expert?"

BTW, what in the hell is an "expert" and what does "expert" have to do with fact or fiction. If an "expert" told you that pigs fly and some non expert said otherwise, would you book a flight on the next swine going south?

Let's examine your statement is considerable detail and see what it reveals.

Are you familiar with the phrase, floating abstraction? It means a thought, idea or concept that exists in the mind as a subjective and vague feeling, but is without any definitive connection to objective reality. Ergo, all thinking referenced to a floating abstraction is likewise a floating abstraction.

The term, expert, is denotive only in that it connotes knowledge and experience. Note that at this juncture, we still have a floating abstraction. To bring this down to earth, knowledge and experience must be connected to something real, i.e., to a specific area of knowledge and experience regarding specific entities and specific relationships between these entities.

Since this is about my garrote analysis, it is the field of garrotes, ropes, cords, knots that connects the term, expert, to reality. Certainly, the term, expert, cannot be quantified and objectively separated from non expert, but the inference of your statement that I am not an expert is that you are saying that I do not have the sufficient experience and knowledge to present a definitive and accurate analysis of the garrote scene of cord, knots and handle.

Since you have made this an issue and your "reason" why I should not be believed, let's take the issue to its conclusion.

I have tied up and tied down everything from a small English Setter pup to a huge five pole circus tent. In between, I have tied thousand of knots of different types for different uses. I have made and used lassos, made and used animal capture snares which work by a garroting action. I know by experience effective design, the physics involved in the material and certainly the element of efficient leverage. By this experience and knowledge, I can quickly and easily differentiate between the work of an amateur and that of one with considerable experience. It is upon the foregoing experience and knowledge that the analysis of the garrote scene was written.

This is my past and present. This is my experience\knowledge relationship to the issue in focus, i.e. the issue of professional vs amateur in regard to the garrote scene. Now Jameson, please tell me of your background in this area. Tell me by what experience, knowledge and rationale that you believe you are qualified to criticize my garrote analysis. To be blunt, your attempt to criticize my garrote analysis is as ridiculous as you trying to tell a heart surgeon how to do a triple bypass operation. Talk about fools rushing in.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"and I have very low regard for him since he incorrectly identified me as the author of the Patricia Letters."

First, I couldn't care less about your regard, low or high. Second, "incorrectly identified"? I don't think so. Want me to trot out our email correspondence on this with all the questions you didn't answer. Jameson, if you're going to play such silly games, someone will find it out. So, if you don't want to get caught, don't do it. Its as simple as that.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"He said that his "evaluation of the garrote scene" is "taking less than a minute" and I say that's really about all the time anyone should take to consider his work. "

Didn't it take you even less time to find out you couldn't refute it?.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"But ACR asked for a serious evaluation, and I am willing to do it - - to post a page on his work that will stay up and available."

Yeah, but not for long. :) Just can't abide a dissenting opinion, can you? How would you survive without your delete button? Any poster that dares go against the grain of your beliefs is soon history. What remains is clone-like automatons that follow the party line or else. The claim that your forum is a place for discussion of the facts of the case is a joke. It is nothing more than a Ramsey propaganda outlet. Its a place where you and others spend hours making up fairy tales about a fantasy intruder. Sure, its your forum and you can allow on it what you want, but at least be honest enough to admit its a Ramsey public relations site, not a place for discussing the facts of the case.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Aside from the fact that this version of a garrote is inherently grossly inefficient compared to some other versions, the first structural inefficiency to notice is the knot arrangement that compresses against the cord. This causes friction reducing the free travel of the cord to reduce the loop for the purpose of strangulation. This is especially true of a small cord easily compressed, and difficult to release. (This is hardly suitable to the perverted sexual activity, not explained, but apparently imagined by Smit.)"

Although no confirmation is really needed, at this point, I would like to insert a second opinion of someone who obviously has had considerable experience in this area. The immediately following was posted on CN by an "Aussie" under the hat, hobey86.

*I have read your garotte analysis and agree with most of what you have said. May I add a couple of points which I think will strengthen your argument.

1. Am I wrong or is the garotte cord flat in shape? This in itself is not a problem but is a problem in the way this particular garotte was made. The knot around the main length of cord is supposed to slide toward the neck as one pulls away from the victim with the handle. As you rightly point out this pulling motion will only tend to lift the neck of the victim off the floor rather than cause sliding of this so called loop towards the neck to cause the desired tightening. However the sliding motion is even more unlikely to occur with this flat cord because as you can see in the photo where the knot is tied around the main length of cord - this main length has become "flattened and twisted" - this baby just isn't going to slide down easily. A round not flat cord would have been more effective with this design - but still would not have worked for the reasons you point out.

2. A perpetrator wishing to genuinely use a garotte for torture and strangulation wants something that is effective and functional, tightens easily with minimum effort, tightens as the victim struggles and LOOSENS when the perpetrator wants it to. That is, and importantly, a garotte design that GIVES CONTROL. That is what torture and punishment and bondage is all about. CONTROL. The garotte as found does none of these things as easywriter you correctly point out.

It is my opinion that the garotte as found on JB was made by someone who has never used a garotte before. If they had they would have not used the design they did as it is totally ineffective and as I have pointed out there is a far superior designs. Also if this garotte was actually used to try and strangle JB it would have been totally ineffective. Further I agree with you easywriter that this garotte is unlikely to have caused complete circular ligature furrow around the neck. Again as you point out more likely is that the perpetrator simply wound a cord around neck and pulled ends in opposite direction, which interestingly, is an arrangement getting closer to my functional garotte design - why - because it works!* (End of hobey86 quote)

Note: So as not to mislead, I am obliged to say that although hobey86 confirms the amateur part, he holds that perhaps it could be amateurish without it being staging. I disagree with this, but will not argue it here. The intent was to show confirmation of the amateur status of the person who staged the garrote crime scene. I assure you this "Aussie" has "tied a few kangaroo down"or the equivalent. He knows his ropes.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"The killer chose a material that was extremely slippery, not like most cord we have lying aroung our homes."

If the terms, pathetic and funny ever come together, this is it. Apparently, you have in your confused mind the idea that a garrote employs some kind of slipping action. From this, you apparently conclude that a "slippery material" is needed or is a beneficial feature of material for a garrote. Now this is funny. I mean really funny. This is one of the items I was referring to in my email that thanked you for the laugh of the day.

Did this "killer" tell you why he chose the "extremely slippery" material? You really don't have the foggiest notion what this is all about do you? "slippery material", indeed. :) As I said, fools rush in.

Why in the hell would the "killer" choose a "slippery material." The slip in a garrote comes from the design, not from the "slippery material." Man, this is too much. I explained the slip factor in the original analysis and hobey86 expanded upon it with clarity. "slippery material"??????. I mean this is precious. Its like a big cyberspace billboard that reads: "LOOK HOW IGNORANT I AM ABOUT GARROTES. LOOK HOW STUPID I AM TO PRETEND OTHERWISE.".

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"not like most cord we have lying around the house"?

You are totally lost. The cord is exactly like the cord someone might have laying around the house. Do you really believe a killer is going to go into a store and buy this small diameter semi-round or flat cord for the purpose of strangling someone to death and\or for sexual games? It hard to imagine a worse choice. Utterly ridiculous.

On the other hand, this cord reminds me of something my mother used to use to sew inside the edge of lapels to hold their shape. I'd say this a pretty good reason for this kind of cord to be lying around some houses. Fer, damn sure, I can't imagine the dumbest killer or dumbest sexual pervert buying this cord for the purpose you absurdly imagine. It was used precisely because it was lying around the house and was handy.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"The knots, called ? "inherently grossly inefficient" by Mr. England did the job just fine. The knots tightened and remained tight, as desired. "

What knots are you talking about? First you talk about "slippery material" which you apparently seem to ridiculously equate with slipping as in a garrote action. Now you're taking about knots tightened and remaining tight. How does this go along with the "slippery material" garroting you appear to imagine?

What knot or knots would you want tight and why? There is only one knot at the base of the neck? What's it for? What about the design? Why do you think its ok? I sure would like to hear this as it diametrically opposes my evaluation and that of hobey86 as well.

You throw around the terms knot and slip knots in reckless and random fashion. You cannot even envision the knot or knots you presume to talk about. If you were asked to describe or tie these "slip knots", you would have no idea of where or how to start.

delmar@ct.net

Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England, 2000. All Rights Reserved.